Microsoft Comes Out in Defense of Windows RT

Microsoft this week took the rare step of defending its strategy of releasing Windows RT alongside Windows 8. But within this defense is a simple admission that mirrors what I’ve been saying about Windows RT all along: This is the platform of the future, not the platform of today.

I have no idea why Microsoft chose CNET to make its case for Windows RT. But looking at what Microsoft corporate vice president Michael Angiulo told the publication, I see some very familiar phrasing.

“[Windows RT] was a ton of work for us and we didn't do the work and endure the disruption for any reason other than the fact that there's a strategy there that just gets stronger over time,” he said. “Looking at things now like power performance and standby time and [fanless] form factors. When we launched windows 8, it was really competitive with a full-sized iPad. A lot of that was made possible by the ARM [chip] architecture.”

Looking at just these couple of sentences a few things stand out immediately:

Disruption. Windows RT is a revolution, not an evolution. That also means it’s not for everyone … for now.

The strategy just gets stronger over time. Windows RT is the future not the present. I’d word this one a bit different, in that I think the strategy only makes sense over time, and that Windows RT makes absolutely no sense for any customers today.

Power performance and standby time and [fanless] form factors. (Or is it power, performance standby time and [fanless] form factors”? We can’t be sure.) But these aspects of Windows RT are today all present in systems based on Windows 8 and the Atom “Clover Trail” platform, which has the added benefit of being 100 percent compatible with all existing Windows software and hardware, unlike Windows RT/ARM.

There’s more.

“I you look forward a year or two and you look at the performance output of ARM chips, those are some really capable chips,” Angiullo notes. “I think it has a very bright future.”

A really bright future. That could be. But looked at today, with the current generation of hardware, Windows RT just isn’t a viable option. It’s a terrible combination of underperforming hardware combined with a complete lack of compatibility with Windows software and hardware and a new, unproven platform. It’s a huge bet to ask users to make, as I’ve repeated many times. And while others are only now coming around to the notion that today’s Windows RT/ARM solutions can’t compete with Windows 8/Atom “Clover Trail,” I made that case over four months ago in Windows 8 Architecture Wars, Part 1: Clover Trail vs. ARM.

Nothing Angiulo tells CNET changes that central argument: Yes, the core benefits of “Metro” and the Windows RT experience—which is essentially that “pure” Metro experience—may be big advantages someday. But that assumes this platform becomes a lot more popular with users and developers. We’re still a ways from that.

Discuss this Article 50

Once again, you push forward the idea that Windows RT is nothing without desktop software compatibility.

I'd argue that a Tablet computer is nothing /with/ desktop software compatibility, as it completely undermines the tablet experience. It's an experience that people /are/ getting 'today' from the iPad, Android Tablets, and -yes- Surface RT.

I feel that taking a tablet and bestowing Desktop software compatibility is not an "added benefit" it's an active detraction from the hallmark features of Tablet computing. Those hallmarks are the very things attracting people to Microsoft's competition. If Microsoft are to succeed in the tablet computing arena, then delivering that hallmark product is the way to do it. As has been said many times - if you want a 'Pure Tablet' Get a Surface RT.

While I do think the desktop should be more hidden away in future Windows/RT releases I find the desktop to be a huge bonus on my Windows tablet (Acer Iconia W5).

The tablet is as thin and light as an iPad, has a 10 hour battery life, and I can use the modern apps when I'm on the go or just for kicks and they work fine on the small screen but when I want to get some work done I can plug in the keyboard dock, fire up the desktop and open the Adobe suite or Office.

For me, being able to switch between the two modes of use on the same machine is invaluable, and while that wont be the case for everyone, I'm so glad I can just carry one device with me that does pretty much everything rather than carrying around my iPad for this, my laptop for that, my iPod for the other.

It's not "no compromise" yet but as these Atom processors get more powerful (and they update the OS so the desktop isn't required unless you specifically want/need to use it) it could be pretty soon.

I'd looked at tablets for a long time and, whilst they were fun to use, I couldn't see why I would buy one. I had a smartphone and I had a laptop. A tablet wouldn't get enough use to justify the cost.

Then I tried a Windows 8 tablet with a dock and it suddenly made sense. For the 15% of the time that a tablet makes sense, for MY WORK, I can use it as a tablet, for the rest, I can dock it with a keyboard or a desktop dock and use it with a 24" display, desktop software, keyboard and mouse, then unplug it and return to use it as a tablet.

I have the best of both worlds, with the advantage that if I need it, I can also access my desktop software in tablet mode and when in desktop mode, I still have direct access to all the notes I took at the meeting in tablet mode.

When working abroad, with little or no network connection, that makes a huge difference, no having to wait 18 hours for a network connection to get my notes synced to the cloud and downloaded to my laptop and no having to plug the tablet into the USB socket and try and get the data synced that way.

For /your/ use case, having desktop software is essential. For mine, it is not. I already have a desktop computer where I can work with desktop software. It's rare that I need anything work related on the move, and when I do, it's typically Office type stuff, which of course is included with Windows RT, and even if it wasn't it's the type of work I could just as easily get done on Office Web Apps.

I think the message is, don't be dismissive of different use cases. For plenty of people, ditching the desktop baggage is a clear win. I never argued it was for everyone - but it's an advantage that should not be dismissed so quickly.

The argument can be made, though, that MS may have miscalculated. In my opinion, Surface RT should have shipped without Office. Moreover, Office should be available for download. A reasonable price would have been $50. Moreover, the touch cover should be available for $50. I've read great things about how MS pulled off such a great engineering job of the touch cover. If so it should have been used as add on to entice customers to purchase Office. Last, the 32 GB RT should have been priced at $399.

I don't have a problem with the lack of backwards compatibility on Windows RT. I think the problem lies with the inclusion of a Desktop environment which brings connotations of BC. Ditch the desktop and go metro-only and ship on 7-8" tablets @ $200-400. Thats a market that hasn't been explored in Windows 8.

I have been a Win RT user since the Surface came out and I can honestly say its brilliant. It's an iPad replacement and a companion for my daily commute. It does so much more than my iPad ever did and I use it for both business and pleasure. I understand it's not for everyone but for me it perfect, light, lasts for days and has almost everything I need. Its a perfect combination for TODAY.

Oh I'm not the only one! Reading this site all the time I had assumed I was the lone crazy guy who loved his Surface RT from the start.
I had an iPad for years (still do, the kids use it now) and the RT is better in just about every single way. The pure fact that I could access and use my wireless printer out of the box, not even a button press to configure was amazing. These little real world uses get missed in the headlines of app count vs app count. And that's just the tip of the iceberg

If that is all you need, then that is fine. What Paul is saying, the ARM based RT offers no benefit over an Atom based tablet, which has the same sort of battery life, is faster, is fanless, yet offers the ability to run legacy software as well, *if you need it*.

If you don't, ever, then RT is fine. For most people, they would, currently, be better off getting an Atom version for the same/similar money.

I went with the Samsung ATIV SmartPC and I love it. Especially the WACOM digitizer and the desktop dock, which means that I now have one device for desktop work and for 10 hours on the move, in a package that weighs 744g.

I know that Mary Jo Foley, over at ZDNet and Paul's co-presenter on Windows Weekly, loves her Surface RT and doesn't want a full Windows 8 tablet either, so you are not mad.

The Naked King
Windows RT is really like this suit so thin and so transparent that the King appears naked in front of the crowd.
Like in the tale, we just have to wait for a kid to say: "the King is naked!"
Who, today, in 2013, could dress with a system file assorted with a browser, a small word processor and a spreadsheet?

1. RT could be a lot more useful now if the price could come down, or if MS was willing to try its luck in the 7" market. That way, the RT would be a lot less of a risk. Pricing yourself to match the iPad isn't the path to success. Pricing yourself to Android might very well be. I.E., getting your Oldmobile (RT) favorably compared to a Chevy (Android) would do more good then constantly bashed being compared to the Caddy (iOS).

2. I'm not convinced that RT can be anything more than a really nice tablet system unless they can get it to do things like display more than 2 apps at once. While I find Snap useful even on a desktop (things like a Twitter feed or music player), one can't get real work done the way Metro works now.

I'm sure that I'm in the minority but my Surface RT is actually pretty close to exactly what I wanted. I want something that I have access to a file system to be able to organize files and folders. I want something that I can us to print and scan with out of the box. I want something I can plug in a USB drive or Headset and use without also using some extra adapter. I don't want to have to worry if my son or wife installs extra toolbars or other adware or viruses. I wanted something I could create separate accounts for and have child safety setting built in.

I doesn't come close to replacing my desktop system but I didn't buy it to do that.

I will admit the biggest issue is the performance but even that isn't a constant hindrance. For what I want and am looking for I think the Surface RT is the best overall device right now.

I already own an RT and enjoyed it. When I upgraded to Surface Pro for work, it was handed down to my wife. She uses it all the time and enjoys. It's a really nice tablet that is still a little rough around the edges.

Now with RT as a strategy, I think MS missed the lessons that could have been learned from Android. You are not going to grow significant market share if your prices are too close to the iPad. I was hoping that other RT vendors would come out with $299-$399 RT tablets. I didn't fault MS at first thinking they were going the Google route and just presenting reference designs and left room for OEM's to undercut them.

However, it looks like MS is serious about becoming a hardware vendor, so they need to get competitive. The prices need to come down with Surface RT at $349, a Surface Atom at $499 and the Surface Pro at $799. Then, let the competitors fall in below that.

“I you look forward a year or two and you look at the performance output of ARM chips, those are some really capable chips,” Angiullo notes. “I think it has a very bright future.”

Sure, if you just ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room, ARM looks amazing. However, the Clovertrail platform performs similarly to existing ARM chips today (beating some like Tegra 3, losing to some A15), with similar battery life.

Clovertrail is still based on a FIVE year old Atom architecture. This year there will be a new Atom, built at 22nm just like Ivy Bridge. After that, Atom goes onto the tick tock roadmap just like Core does now.

So in two years, there will likely be three refreshes of the new Atom.

The problem with Windows RT is that it has no future, not that it is the future. Sure Windows 9 will likely be more RTish (less desktop dependence?) but this whole WOA thing is likely going to be dead just due to timing.

If Windows 8 and WOA had come out in 2010, we'd be somewhere else because Intel had nothing to compete at that TDP but now... look out.

Why is the Surface RT not based on Clover Trail? Because when Surface was on the drawing board a year ago, Atom Clover Trail did not yet exist. Intel's five-year-old Atom platform had been execrable for every one of those five years. Microsoft's depenency on x86 CPU's, particularly those by Intel, prevented it from getting a viable foothold in the tablet market. But the Tegra 3 had just come out. Hence Microsoft ported Windows to the prevailing ARM architecture. And what do we see? Faced with the threat of losing a major chunk of their largest cash cow, Intel could suddenly be moved to pull Clover Trail out of the bag. Where were you all this time, you big ape?

For Microsoft it is a win-win. Since it is no longer tied to Intel, it can sit back and watch the battle for supremacy and not care which chip turns out to be superior. We (finally) have the Atom Clover Trail, but nVidia has already moved on to Tegra 4: 70% faster performance than the Tegra 3 at a 45% better battery life, at a cheaper price than the Atom. As Intel catches up to that one with the 22nm Atom Bay Trail, the next, faster, more frugal ARM CPU will already be in development.

And the problem with Atom Clover Trail is: the GPU is dismal. Even the Tegra 3 outperforms it. So Intel is now planning a better GPU for Bay Trail. As a result, perhaps Bay Trail will be as great as promised; that's cool. Or the Tegra 4 or Snapdragon 800 ends up being better? That’s also cool, because Microsoft has an OS for that too. We cannot predict which platform will be better several years down the line, but that does not matter, because both scenarios are covered, and the new WinRT framework apps work on both OS's.

And that’s a win for the consumer, because the competition between Intel and ARM guarantees us the leanest, fastest, cheapest chip possible. Make no mistake: that Atom chip runs so well because of Windows RT.

Though I love reading up on tech, I am a fairly basic pc-user. As such, the Surface RT provides me with everything I need from a tablet. Read / write my email, do a bit of web surfing and look up what movie to watch in the cinema.

Having a desktop on a tablet is nice, but let's face it, the user experience on the desktop is nothing short of rubbish. No Windows legacy apps are written to be used on a touch device. And do you really want to PhotoShop photos on a 10 inch screen? Come on...
So that almost raises the question, should the Surface Pro ever been developed as Windows 8 stands at the moment? Besides the software, even the hardware is questionable and can't compete in the current tablet market when it comes to battery life. A key part to a good tablet.

No, for a pure tablet experience, the Surface RT does the job very well. Prominent apps are missing, but the user experience is that worthy of a tablet. Except for that bloody desktop of course.....

Yes they can connect to printers and scanners. I've printed and scanned documents from my Surface RT to my Cannon printer/scanner wirelessly. I'd assume you could do the same by hooking it up through the USB port but I've never tried it.

ALL of the Surface architectures have compromises of one sort or another, you just choose the one that makes sense to you, and as an Asus VivoTab RT owner, I certainly don't think that RT makes sense for nobody.

The traditional Intel i5 tablets are more expensive, heavier, shorter on battery life, and run hotter.

The Clovertrail tablets are currently limited to 2GB of RAM and 64GB of disk space. This severely limits the ability to run all legacy software. If you start with a full version of Win 8 and add, say, Adobe Creative Suite, you won't be running much else, and you won't be running it particularly well.

RT clearly is not going to be running legacy software at all, just Metro apps and Office - and the version of Office shipped with RT shows that most legacy apps, even tweaked a bit for touch, aren't really optimized for touch,

For me, RT was the best choice. If the tablet were my only computer, it wouldn't be, but it can do iPad type things plus Office, and had some real advantages as a portable media player - SD card, HDMI out, and widescreen format. I have an iPad, and there are times I will use it for things RT can't do yet, like audio editing.

"And while others are only now coming around to the notion that today’s Windows RT/ARM solutions can’t compete with Windows 8/Atom “Clover Trail,” I made that case over four months ago in Windows 8 Architecture Wars, Part 1: Clover Trail vs. ARM."

But paul, you also said in a podcast that you are not sure even clovertrail will turn put to be what everyone is expecting, so it may still fall short of the battery life compared to ARM, in which case, Surface RT will have better battery life, and a year will have gone by by the time CT hits. Then intel will announce the next chip with the promise of battery life and performance....

Microsoft realized that they'd need an entire family of form factors: phone, phablet, mini tablet, tablet, laptops, all in ones, hybrids, desktops, and everything in between.

Their idea is a share core across all which makes development a lot easier between them. If you look at any other company: Google, Apple, Canonical, etc. The only company that comes remotely close to doing that is Canonical...and Ubuntu for tablets or phones isn't even out on any commercial devices and won't be for at least a year.

So, what it comes down to is that Windows RT was necessary. I fully believe that Microsoft wanted to release Windows RT as Windows without the desktop, but they didn't finish the full port..and opted to release early, get feedback, and then release Blue to tie up loose ends. I also think that Office RT wasn't ready, yet, so that's why they gave consumers a desktop version of Office for free to try and beef up adoption.

So, you're right: this isn't a today platform, it's a tomorrow platform. I fully expect them to get there. It's also why the Atom vs. ARM argument isn't what Microsoft cares about. They want to sell licenses. What they prefer with ARM is the ability to nix the desktop. Now, the problem with that approach right now is that the Windows Store is only 5 months old. It will take longer to mature. And I'm not just talking 3rd party apps: core apps and the core platform as well.

So, what does this mean for consumers? Windows RT is the future. Early, but the future.

Windows RT will be a Modern UI first platform available on smaller form factors (7"+ devices). It'll focus on core Modern UI apps and a more mature Windows Store platform. It will effectively be Microsoft's "iOS". The goal should be to ensure that Windows Phone apps run on Windows RT/8. And I think MS is trying for that. I think Snap view will accommodate that, similar to Canonical's vision for Ubuntu.

I like my Surface RT...use it everyday. Sometimes I go to my Office Top. I bought it fully realizing it was an exercise and a beginning to something new. I bought a second one and it will remain unopened. It is Microsoft's first PC.

I love the Metro side of my surface pro. When I'm in tablet mode I rarely use desktop. That would become never if they'd support browser plugins. I can't use metro IE all the time because I'm completely dependent on lastpass. They really need to improve the metro remote desktop app though.... it's terrible.

"Windows RT is the future not the present". No rush, no need to play the best card (i.e. x86 compatibility), Microsoft has time because they are an undisputed market leader. Other PC vendors also have time and will keep releasing RT devices and patiently wait till that future arrives :) Guess a change in the leadership at Microsoft is long overdue

It makes absolutely no sense to buy a Surface Pro device. The screen is too small to do any serious work, battery life is low to use it as a tablet. You can always buy a good ultra-book to use it for serious work. If you need a companion device for your pleasure and for some light work Surface RT is best for you.

Paul, I bought a SurfaceRT when it came out and have been using it regularly for the past few months. In its defence it is more than an iPad and as much as the Calendar, Mail and Photo apps are "basic" the system as whole is usable. Yes, I firmly believe that MSFT will improve things and bring it up to speed. I am willing to give it a chance. For those that want or need an iPad type device then they should go and get one. Just like those that need an iPhone type device then they should also go and get one. The ground is shifting and thank goodness MSFT is shifting with it. Sure it will make some people uncomfortable but, hey, technology is all about change and in may case deciding which changes suit me and how it will suit my needs in the future. On that basis I think MSFT has and is making a pretty strong case for itself.

As an ipad substitute, Win RT on Surface already works just fine. The bonus of Office and a keyboard means for many people, particularly those just surfing the web, doing email etc, its all you need.

I get what you are saying Paul about WinRT not being complete, because ultimately it runs Windows 8, which is in itself not complete. but I think you are far to harsh about Win RT.

For a perhaps surprising number of people, Win RT ticks all the boxes they would ever really need. For example I have students who use Win RT on Surface as a companion computing device for their study and it works brilliantly in that role.

I am like a few others here. I have the Surface RT and love it. I would agree it is more than I thought and less than expected. The downside is actually power. It is slower and with any amount of heavy lifting it becomes noticeable.

That said, it was absolutely perfect on a recent business trip to the US. The only downfall was when my wife wanted to do a Google Hangout instead of Skype. At that time, no flash, even on the desktop browser, but that should be a thing of the past. But otherwise, did what I wanted: checked email, communicated with my office on Skype, transferred PowerPoint files, updated documents, cruised the net, both from my room and the wireless in our HQ. Even watched a movie on the flight, finished a Kindle book, and tweeted and updated Facebook.

I do feel a large part of why RT hasn't taken off is simply down to the price.

I can understand the premium price of the Surface as it is a premium product, but the RT devices from Dell, Samsung, and Asus are all MORE expensive than the Surface. Full Windows 8 convertibles on Atom can bee bought for less than their RT counterparts so even though most people don't understand the difference between 8/RT they're still not going to buy them when they can get cheaper versions of something that looks the same (or a cheap non-touch laptop).

Microsoft were right to launch RT, they just did it badly (as usual) and the OEMs priced the devices too high and I feel bad for anyone who didn't know what they were getting into who ended up with RT when they could have had 8 for the same price (or for less).

Plonk
Can WinRT tablet connect to external devices like printers and scanners?

I haven't tried any scanners but have tried all sorts of printers and haven't found one yet that it couldn't print to. Using the "Add devices" wizard you can even connect using IP without any problem. Try that with your iPad or Android.

Paul, I think you are wrong, sorry. I find your view of Windows RT to be way too biased toward desktop power users. Windows RT, in the context of tablet use, is easily competitive with other mobile operating systems.

I've watched Microsoft Store reps explain that differences between the Surface RT and the Surface Pro, and I would say that any confusion can be dispelled easily for most. Beyond Office, most consumers don't have big investments in Windows applications, and their expectations have already been set by the iPad that tablets are NOT PCs. The fact that Windows RT tablets can run new tablet-style applications AND a real PC version of Office is a bonus, even with the "app gap" today.

You perceive Clover Trail tablets as universally better because of Win32 compatibility, and I agree this is true for power users. But no Atom-based device will ever deliver long-term the safety and reliability of an ARM-based device as long as its possible for people to install random desktop software from outside the Store. Do you have any idea how much "normal" people struggle to use Windows PCs once something goes south? A main reason people are running away from PCs and embracing iPads is because of simplicity, reliability, and engagement with the touch interface. Windows RT today is arguably more complex (due to the legacy desktop) but it will certainly offer better security and reliability than any Intel-based version of Windows.

I don't understand how you can on the one had compare modern PC users to turn of the century automobile owners who had to be mechanics just to drive a car, and on the other hand so vehemently trash Windows RT and Surface RT (which aim to address this).

Many people simply don't need the legacy compatibility that you deem so important; for them the "platform of the future" can work just fine right now.

My opinion about Clover Trail being superior to ARM is only partially about Win32 compatibility, which it should be noted includes a huge swath of hardware that will not work--or will not work as well-with ARM-based Windows RT devices.

But it much deeper than that.

Clover Trail devices offer the same or better battery life than do Windows-based ARM devices today. They also offer the ability to create the same, super-thin, silent device types that one could make with ARM.

So Clover Trail erases the only supposed ARM advantages while adding additional advantages of its own, including, yes, Win32 compatibility.

To those who say they don't need this compatibility, I'm calling bullshit. And at least it's there as an option. It's not an option on ARM.

The only real-world (and yet artificial) advantage of ARM over Intel today is that Windows RT ships with Office. That's it.

Sorry, but Clover Trail-based Windows 8 devices just make more sense than do Windows RT devices. Today. And in general. One might make the argument that Surface RT is a great piece of hardware, etc. and that they prefer this design (with the Touch/Type keyboards, etc.) to whatever Clover Trail devices there are out there. Fair enough.

But the Metro platform is in its infancy, the apps selection is still terrible, and media story is a joke, and you don't have Win32 to fall back on, if only temporarily. My original argument still applies: Windows RT may make sense in the future. It does not make sense now. If you're able to live with Windows RT, congratulations. I won't try to convince you that you're fooling yourself or whatever. But you are willingly accepting less and pretending otherwise. You just are.

And yes, writing this article I knew I'd hear from every RT defender on earth. God bless you all, seriously. :) But my opinions/advice/comments here are for the wider world, much of which would be hugely disappointed by Windows RT. I cannot with any sense of conscience recommend otherwise.

Hi Paul. The key area of your argument is very logical but misses one important point. Backwards compatibility is a bonus and possibly a must have for power users, but for some users it is a very big problem. I regularly have 'friends/family' bring me their broken PCs. Most of the time it is due to malware/viruses, or simply crappy software that they have downloaded. For these people the 'lack' of backward compatibility is a benefit. As you say, the RT platform is in still immature, but I have found that for many people the features it offers are sufficient, without the problems that occur, when they click on the wrong thing on a website. Many of the problems are not true malware, just really crappy software that tricks them into installing it.

Office is an edge for RT, but it is far from the only one. Price is still an edge. My RT tablet (Asus VivoTab RT) was under $500 including the keyboard dock, and I didn't get the best deal on it, I have seen $399 including the keyboard. CloverTrail tablets are more expensive, and the inclusion of Office with RT increases that price disparity. ARM chips are also immune to the common types of X86 malware, certainly an edge, at least short term. RT is also about half the size of Win 8, which really matters when you are dealing with tablets with limited disk space (I have not seen a CloverTrail tablet larger than 64GB yet, and running apps from an SD card has been problematic on every OS I have tried it on).

I have a harder time making the use case for a full Win 8 tablet, as I think ultrabooks are better in almost every respect.

I personally own a Surface Pro (which has compromises of its own), so I am not "willingly accepting less", but my wife has a Surface RT and is completely smitten with it. Will an Intel tablet remain as reliable and problem-free over time? I hope so.

I am yet to buy a Win8 tablet. I like the surface and I feel it does all that I need when out on the road in my role as an area sales manager. With one exception, SkyDrive desktop client.. I have all my price lists and presentations on SkyDrive and love the fact that currently, my desktop PC and laptop are truly in tune. This alone means I will bypass the Surface and buy a clovertrail device. I know it won't run photoshop, but that is not an issue for me. I want to be able to email, message, listen to music, update social media etc. Seems to me a CT product with Office 365 will do all this and not need charging every 5 hours.

I see a lot of commentary on backwards compatibility for RT with prior versions of Windows, or comments on its inability to use other WIN 8 applications, which I don't understand. No one complains that IOS applications don't work on OSX right? They are two different operating systems, running on two different hardware specs. Maybe the root cause of these perception problems is just a branding mistake MS made. Had they named it Surface RT or just Surface, instead of trying to unify the branding of the telephone, ARM and x86 OS's, maybe this would be less of a mess.

Yes, I think Microsoft would have been better served by naming Windows RT Metro or whatever, anything but Windows, but that's a done deal and isn't going to change now. For Microsoft, everything has to be Windows or Office, they want to stick with successful brands, even when not appropriate (Windows CE?).

I still don't think it's fair to make a general or absolute statement that Windows RT doesn't make sense for ANY customers today. If I have one and generally use it for most of my computing needs, besides work (which doesn't really allow the sole use of tablets to begin with), then I would say that it isn't useful for MOST customers. You cannot deny that I represent a SMALL but still existent subset of weirdoes that WOULD and DO make a good audience of Windows RT users. Its a new platform made for new people, us time-travelers who reside here now... =p

WinRT is for NOW @ least on a Tablet. A tablet is a compromise gaining mobility, endurance and the ease of a touch interface. Surface WinRT is less of a compromise because it does add keyboard, mice and external memory support among other things.

But why would anyone want to spend more money on a Win8 tablet just so they can install legacy apps to run on a tablet sized desktop? There are better form factors for that.

What I am unsure about if (WOA) or WinRT is a suitable replacement for Win8 on laptops and desktops. Most consumers needs are relatively basic outside of gaming. Enterprises can certainly use (dumb) terminals to connect to their Citrix Servers and access full use of their enterprise software.

Is WinRT Microsoft's vision of the future for these devices as well, maintaining only Win 8 for those who require real computer hardware and software?

I think Microsoft is missing a huge opportunity with Windows RT. The main complaint I hear about Surface RT (I’ve owned one since day one) is that it does not run legacy application. Microsoft could easily counter that complaint by providing (free at first and later on a subscription basis) virtual desktops to owners of RT machines. The user would have all the mobility of the Surface RT and the ability to remote desktop to a Microsoft provided (as a service!) virtual desktop. No more drivers, backups, viruses, ... Microsoft could work with the major software suppliers that the home user might depend on Photoshop, Quicken, … to make their software available to users on a subscription basis.
This would answer all the complaints about Windows RT, provide a new source of revenue, and blow the iPad away.

What I Use

Like many, I was hoping to see a new Lumia flagship before the end of 2014, and while I was pleasantly surprised in some ways by both the Lumia 735 and 830, neither offers the level of performance or best-in-market camera quality I had come to expected from Microsoft/Nokia's high-end devices. So I pulled the trigger on an unlocked Windows Phone flagship that will hopefully take me through at least the first half of this year. Or until Microsoft gets off its low-end fixation and satisfies the needs of its biggest fans....More

It's been a while since the last What I Use, but there haven't been many major changes since late last year: Surface Pro 3 has become my go-to travel companion, I've added a third cellphone line for testing Windows Phone, Android and iPhone side-by-side, and have rotated through some new tablets and other devices. We've also switched from FIOS to Comcast and added to our set-top box collection....More